Hi folks. I'm Alan
Watt and this is cuttingthroughthematrix.com
and alanwattsentientsentinel.eu , on May 25th, 2007.

I'm going to start off with a little article that came out,
the typical type of article that we're given, which is almost kindergarten
language for the general public, from one of the many newspapers or magazines
that are out there, which feeds you pieces of information given out by PR
companies much higher above them.
There's no questioning of anything. It’s from them to us—down to us, as
though God was speaking, and we're all stupid morons at the bottom.

This one is from "LiveScience.com". Again, as I say, it's something which is
parroted, and it's for public consumption. This one is from the 4th of May 2007, by Andrea Thompson. I’ve got to laugh at the way they even put
this stuff up on their sites. When you look at it, it's your typical magazine
you'd buy at the checkout counter in a grocery store.

It's the silliness of it all, as they present this stuff to
us. We're used to all this silliness now, so they have to wrap all this
silliness into the stuff they want us to believe, as well.

Here's what it
says here:

"An extensive and previously unknown
"twilight zone…"

Alan: A twilight zone?

"…of particles in the atmosphere could
complicate scientists' efforts to determine how much the Earth's climate will warm
in the future, a new study finds."

Alan: This is your standard intro spiel for the
“unwashed masses.”

"…a previously unknown "twilight
zone" of particles."

Alan: "Previously unknown." This is
amazing, since they've been putting all these billions of bucks into the
atmosphere, rockets, and NASA pilot projects to determine this. These are the first guys that told us about
the ozone layer. They are the only ones who can detect it, because they have
the equipment. No one else can prove it, in fact, and we parrot “holes in ozone
layer,” et cetera, as we parrot everything else that the scientists, you know,
“the gods,” the new gods tell us. We're
so easily managed.

"…previously unknown "twilight zone"
of particles in the atmosphere."

Alan: It just appeared. Yes, it's a new normal.

"…could complicate scientists' efforts to
determine how much the Earth's climate will warm in the future, a new study
finds."

Alan: Didn't they know that already? All this hype and drumbeat about how it's
going to warm, what's going to go on to, and all the could-be's and
should-be's, et cetera? It's a huge
business now.

"In addition to greenhouse gases…"

Alan: There are your buzzwords, you see. They get
us to repeat the buzzwords.

"…greenhouses gases which absorb infrared
radiation, or heat, emitted from Earth's surface and send it back to the
ground, cloud droplets and aerosols, such as dust and air pollutants, in the
atmosphere also affect the planet's temperature."

Alan: Oh, wow, like this is new. This is new that
dust and air pollutants affect the planet's temperature, and also gives you a
more beautiful sunset, the more pollutants that are in it. In fact, when the volcanoes go off, you get
tremendous sunsets across the world. I got that in kindergarten as well.

"The exact overall effect of these two
types of particles is still uncertain: while clouds block incoming solar
radiation, water vapor also acts as a greenhouse gas…"

Alan: There it is again, highlighted.

"…trapping heat like a blanket. Now,
recent satellite observations have found a zone of "in-between
particles" in the air around clouds that was previously considered clear."

Alan: See, it's a "new normal." It suddenly appeared. It suddenly appeared,
and within a year it will have always have been "normal," as they
scrub the old books away. Where have
these particles have come from? Could
it be the metallic stuff they're spraying all over the world, and have been for
the last few years? They won't mention
that part of course, because, remember boys and girls, we're in kindergarten
again.

"The area around clouds has given us
trouble," said study team member Lorraine Remer of NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md."

Alan: Goddard Space Center. So if God's in it, it must true.

"The instruments detected something
there, but it didn't match our understanding of what a cloud or an aerosol
looked like."

Alan: They didn't understand it. It was like a
brand new, new normal phenomena.

"What we think we're seeing is a
transitional zone where clouds are beginning to form or are dying away, and
where humidity causes dry particles to absorb water and get bigger."

Alan: You can tell it wasn't the best PR spokesman
that handed this spiel down for the lower ones to put out there to us unwashed
masses to get bigger.

"Scientists have been aware of an
indistinct "halo" surrounding individual clouds, but the newly
detected zone is much more extensive, taking up as much as 60 percent of the
atmosphere previously labeled as cloud-free."

Alan: “60 percent of it all”—It just appeared out
of nowhere. I wonder if their
computers will eventually tell them, there are planes spraying this stuff, or,
if it's not on their program, maybe they'll keep going around in circles and
ask them for billions of bucks every year, while they investigate it.

"The
previously unknown ingredient in the atmospheric mixture of particles will have
to be factored into models that try to predict how the atmosphere influences
the change of global temperatures. The effects of this zone are not included in
most computer models that estimate the impact of aerosols on climate,"
said lead author Ilan Koren of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Israel.
"This could be one of the reasons why current measurements of this effect
don't match our model estimates."

Alan: I guess the clouds will have to reorganize
themselves, to match the computers, to make these geezers understand what
they're looking at.

"The study was published in the April
18 issue of the journal Geophysical
Research Letters."

Alan: Then you can go on, to look up all the other stuff that they're
going to terrify you with, like, "Timeline: The Frightening Future of
Earth,” “The Definition of Cloud Gets Cloudy,” and “All About Global Warming,”
as they jump on the bandwagon, and we're supposed to say, "My goodness,
let's give everything up, because this is just too horrendous. We're terrified,” like one of these disaster
movies, and they take all your rights away, because after all, apparently we're
causing it all. We're causing it all, you see, by breathing—breathing and
living.

That's
how the standard nonsense is fed to the unwashed masses, who've been trained
that, just like the old priesthoods of previous years, this new priesthood in
the white coats speaks for God; or maybe they are God. The only difference is they keep changing
their minds, so I guess God keeps changing his mind, all the time, depending on
what new program they have in their computer that finds things they never saw
before. It's a blind God that can't see the spraying in the sky, to find out
where the 60 percent space of the whole world's atmosphere suddenly has these
particles in it, that wasn't known before. Maybe it didn't exist before. Maybe
that's why it wasn't known before?
Maybe they should ask their computer that?

One
of the last books that Carl Jung wrote was about the changes that he saw
coming. In his day, of course, there
was a big Iron Curtain. We'll find that in history of the ancient system that
came right up to the present. It's the
same system of builders, great builders that came into the countries with their
system of money, power, bureaucracy, taxation, forcing the same system
everywhere they went, and building things: Building capital cities, monuments
and walls, great walls. They built walls everywhere; even across Britain, when
the Romans went in there; China, the Great Wall of China; Wall Street, for the
money guys. The great builders of high,
high, real Masonry, not the little stuff at the bottom.

Carl
Jung likened the Iron Curtain of the communist system to what was happening
across the whole world, as he saw it in the future, the near future, because he
said, "power within any organization, even a bureaucracy which is started
or begun with a legitimate purpose, or what seems to be legitimate, cannot help
but grow like a cancer. It just expands."
If it weren't the case, a bureaucracy and even a special police
department or anything that's formed to investigate something and check
something, or scientists for that matter too, on global warming, they can't
help it. Once they get grants coming in, they must try and justify their reason
for continued existence, because everyone wants a permanent income; and the
higher the better in this system.

Therefore,
you find that bureaucracies of all kinds, and even non-governmental
organizations that start getting grants from governments, they really are paid
by governments and the big foundations that work with governments. It's all the
same thing, really, one huge multi-faceted, multi-faced, world corporation with
all these departments. Each one must and constantly keep justifying its need to
exist another year, another year, another year, ad infinitum. That's how it goes. Every department, every organization is the
same.

Carl
Jung saw the people, the individualist, being stifled, totally suffocated by
rules and regulations, as they all overlapped each other for power. Lenin saw the
same thing, but he was in on the Big Plan, and wrote about it too, the same
thing. You see everyone is cashing in
on the global warming, that they say, and keep saying, and will continue to say
and hype up, until we parrot it as well, just as easily. That's how you
introduce changes in the system. You keep saying it. It is so; therefore it becomes so.

This is from "The Vancouver Sun, May 24th, 2007. That was Thursday. I don't know why it says Monday, May 21st,
2007.

"Future flood of 'climate refugees' ahead?

RCMP:
Police report warns of a potentially overwhelming influx of people if
global warming forces millions to flee Bangladesh…"

Alan: They picked Bangladesh.

"…and other countries."

Alan: This is by Chad Skelton of "The Vancouver Sun." It says here it was published Tuesday, January 30th, 2007. I don't know why they have all these dates
on it.

"Global climate change could pose serious
challenges for police and B.C. (British Columbia) from public disorder…"

Alan: Here they go.

"…during natural disasters to climate refugees
fleeing flooded countries, according to an internal RCMP report obtained by The
Vancouver Sun."

Alan: Why do police have all these secret reports,
and you have to obtain it, if they're serving the public? –If they're
serving the public.

"The report, External Trends Influencing Policing in British Columbia,
was prepared in September 2005 for senior B.C. Mounties attending an annual
planning meeting, and covers several topics.
It was obtained by The Sun through the Access to Information Act. The
report's section on climate change…"

Alan: This is the police getting in on it.

"…states that "effects on British
Columbia's weather patterns are already occurring. Wetter winters and dryer
summers in B.C. have increased the risk for flooding and forest fires."

Alan: It's true they've had forest fires, two or three years ago. One
of them was terrible. It came out,
after much bungling and much finger pointing, that also the forestry departments
have stopped putting fires out, and they start them now, because apparently the
"new policy," the "new normal" is that occasional forest
fires are good for the land and the timber, to get rid of all the underbrush.
So they start them. They drop this burning pitch from helicopters, which they
show us on television, and it's amazing too, the pollution it causes. It’s
massive. When there are thousands of acres going up in flames, you see this big
black pall of smoke, but, you see, when government does it, it's good pollution. When you burn your little wood stove, it's
bad pollution. This is the insanity
we’re expected to accept, and unfortunately, lots of people do accept this
nonsense. Yes, they've been starting
fires, and we've had lots more forest fires since.

We
also have the HAARP working overtime. With HAARP, it's amazing, because they
can superheat the atmosphere, which they do, causing massive explosions. We had that two or three years ago, when we
heard bangs over British Columbia, down through Washington State, that set off
fire alarms and car alarms all down through the places, for hundreds of miles.
The experts flooded on the TV next day with all their opinions. "It must have been a meteorite; didn't
see it, but it must have been."
Then about a week later, we had the same thing happening over
Australia—massive bangs in the sky, clear days, nothing seen. That was the
HAARP technology superheating the atmosphere and causing explosions. They can also cause lightning. The Wizard of
Oz has all the tricks up his sleeve.

"This report goes on to say that global warming is "likely to lead
to more natural disasters [and] severe weather, as well as increased spread of
disease and water-borne pathogens. And those natural disasters, the report
states, are something the RCMP must be prepared for. A growing number of natural disasters and extreme weather events
both globally and in B.C. have increasingly focused attention on the need for
extensive preparations for mitigating the effects and public disorder problems that
attend such disasters," it states. Looking to the future, the
report states that "Canada's north could become warmer and more hospitable
to marine traffic, posing new security challenges" and that "climate
refugees [are] a potential issue".

Alan: “Climate refugees”—I wonder if
they'll get grants for that.

"RCMP spokesman Staff Sgt. John Ward said in an
interview Monday that climate change is one of many issues the force is
monitoring."

Alan: I guess they'll get another grant for that.

"We think there may be an impact [on
police] -- that it might be an issue," he said. "It's on our
radar." However, he said that --
unlike drug smuggling or organized crime -- the Mounties don't believe global
warming requires an immediate police response."

Alan: Hmm.

"William Rees, an ecologist at the University
of British Columbia, said while it is impossible to make precise predictions
about climate change…"

Alan: If that's impossible, to make precise
predictions about climate change, why has the whole world signed all these
different treaties to change us, if they can't predict or make precise
predictions about climate change?

To
continue:

"…the fears raised in the RCMP report are a
"credible scenario".

Alan: Now anything's credible, I mean, anything
could be made possible; anything could be possible.

"For example, said Rees, many climatologists
predict global sea levels will rise by about one meter by the end of this
century."

Alan: Now many do predict that; and they're all
working for the UN, because they live on grants, these scientists. However, it also means if many
climatologists predict it, it also means that many of the other ones don't.

"Let's assume, for the sake of argument that
we are talking about a one-meter sea level rise."

Alan: So in other words, let's take a hypothesis
that you can't predict, because the guy before said you can't predict; and so
here they are, predicting anyway, and taking a figure out of the air,
“one-meter at the end of the century.” This is old stuff, really; they're
rehashing.

"Let's assume, for the sake of argument
that we are talking about a one-meter sea level rise." Then
you're talking about certainly tens -- possibly hundreds -- of millions…"

Alan: Oh, so it starts off with tens, possibly
hundreds or:

"…millions of climate refugees globally,"
he said. "Most of the world's major seaports would be endangered. Much of
Bangladesh would be inundated."

Alan: It’s Bangladesh again.

"Rees said current illegal migration along
the U.S.-Mexico border will be "like a picnic compared to what might be
ahead."

Alan: Oh, they're always predicting, “We’re in a
disaster mode. Everything could be a potential disaster, and you'll find the
solution with lots and lots of taxpayers' money.”

"…would have a "serious moral
obligation" to assist those refugees, he said. Such a global exodus would
require a response from agencies like the RCMP, said Rees."

Alan: What happens if Canada gets wiped out and
we're all fleeing over to Bangladesh? Huh? Who's going to pay the RCMP
then? Think about that and put it in
your report. You could have a meeting about it.

"It's not impractical to think of the
increasing military and policing actions that are necessarily going to
accompany mass movements of that kind," he said. Morag Carter, director of
the climate change program at the David Suzuki Foundation…"

Alan: Ha! —the World Wildlife Fund.

"…said while it's important for agencies like
the RCMP to plan for global warming, governments and individuals should take
measures now to reduce greenhouse gases. "Planning for catastrophic events
in the future is a very important thing to do," she said.

Alan: You know all these disaster movies started
with, I think it was, The Blob. Then they went into earthquake movies and burning infernos, like
towers going down, and here we are, they're using the same techniques (probably
the same scriptwriters) to put all this stuff out to us, from the top. It’s the
same technique, actually.

" Planning for catastrophic events in the
future is a very important thing to do," she said. But it's the sort of
thing you do while you're [also] doing your best to prevent the disaster
happening in the first place."

Alan: There you go with all this stuff you cannot
predict, according to the other expert in the same write up, and here the rest
of them are going on predicting it; and we're in limbo as the dialectic is
played out on our minds. However, the one good thing is, above the report,
“check out your horoscope and astrology.” That gives it a lot of credibility,
you see, and that's from The Vancouver Sun. Maybe it's in the stars, eh?

This next piece is from Parallel Normal, which
I've read from before. Tuesday, May
22nd, 2007 and it's about the microchip.

It
says here:

"The Sick and Elderly: First Targets for
Chipping."

Alan: There's a picture of a microchip. It's
actually a large one from the VeriChip company. They have them much, much
smaller now, which they can inject by needle—much smaller, a fraction of that
size. You'll see it in the picture on Parallel Normal website.

It
says:

'This
won't hurt a bit. (At least, you won’t remember.) An
Alzheimer’s care facility in Florida will implant RFID tags into its patients,
to help identify them in case they stray from “campus.” Of course, it’s unlikely anyone who finds these test subjects wandering
along the road will even think to scan them. Still, ABC News lapped it up.

Alan: Well, abracadabra!

"Dozens of diabetics in Boston and Georgia
have also been implanted with the subcutaneous RFID chips made by
VeriChip. The ABC News piece reads:
leading RFID opponent Katherine Albrecht."

Alan: I think Mark has already written—he tells
you he's written about Albrecht for Wired
News and the Boston Globe.

"Albrecht is an avowed Christian who believes
that RFID tags (or arfids) may be a precursor to the Mark of the Beast
described in the Book of Revelation. It’s an inconvenient angle for mainstream
reporters, which, when the reporters quote her, invariably leave out of the
story."

Alan: They can't.
They can't connect the two, because if you connect the two, you have to
start thinking off in different directions. Either Revelation was true, you
see, predictions could be true, which means there's a God, and “oh, my
goodness, you can't go there.” Or else, the other part of it, is the clique who
control this world are following Revelations to the letter, which is a good
ploy, because when you have millions of people convinced that if it's God's
will, you can't do anything about it. Then,
the more you hype that propaganda up, the more they will just sit back and do
nothing, and say, "there's nothing you can do." It's good
psychological warfare. One or the
other, you can take your pick.

Then Mark goes on
to talk about:

"His relationship with Albrecht became strained after a Wired News
editor reworded certain passages in my write-up of Spychips, a book Albrecht
co-authored, and which includes quotes from me. The Wired News editor wanted
the piece to appear more skeptical of Albrecht’s book. He also tagged it as a
review (under Mark's byline), which it was never intended to be."

Alan: In other words, he's telling you, yes, they
will spin things and they will alter things which don't fit what they want the
public to know. Or, they'll twist it to give you a different impression or
lasting perception of something. That's to do with that. Therefore, they always
go for the children first, and then the sick, eventually, and the elderly. The
elderly, the ones who have the least power, is who they go for first, always.

The ones in the middle are too busy running after the big
carrot and enjoying themselves, and having lot of sex, and sometimes drugs, or
whatever else they happen to be into. They have lots of hobbies, lots of little
things to pass the time, or sports. They don't care about the young or the
elderly. That's the sad truth about society. That's why this can be done,
generation after generation, until it's your turn to join the latter category
of the elderly, and then they come and whack you, and there's no one to stand up
for you. You wonder where all the safety nets are. You find there are no safety
nets, really. You have only one “authority” over you; and bang!, in goes the
chip and they have you where they want you, at their mercy, and that's really
what that's about. You're at their mercy.

I'm surprised the Mounties (from the last thing I talked
about there, the last article) haven't jumped and asked for a grant on that, to
see if they can get the trackers and a special team, where they could find
these wandering people, who don't know who they are, supposedly. A tracking
team, they could ride around on horses and lasso them and pull them in. There
are grants everywhere, if you look hard enough.

This article I'm about to read is from BBC News Technology. BBC.co.uk/navigation and it
says: BBC News 24, May 21, 2007. I guess this is a new term they're using for
the infrared system that runs the wireless Internet. It’s the stuff they're dosing cities with now, and making
wireless in big cities and whole areas, which is really tied in with the coming
ID card with the active chip, so you'll be traced everywhere you go, and then
down the road it will be used for the chip implant. That's why the big push is
on to make everything wireless everywhere. It’s constant tracking, wherever you
are. That's the real purpose of it, down the road. It says here and they're calling it "wi-fi," very
trendy, “wi-fi.” They love trendiness. It’s “wireless fidelity,” I guess; I
have no idea. But anyway, it's infrared technology from the microwave systems.

"Scientists have said there is no evidence to
suggest a link between the use of wi-fi and damage to health."

Alan: There's your statement, right at the top,
which will stay in your memory; after you read the rest of the stuff, it
doesn't matter. It's the first part you'll retain. That's why it's at the top,
and it's in bold at the top.

"BBC programme Panorama…"

Alan: This is their investigative bunch; really,
the top guys always work for MI5.

"…found that radiation levels from wi-fi in
one school was up to three times the level of mobile phone mast radiation."

Alan: In another article they put out, they said
it's actually the main beam of the mobile phone mast radiation. Perception is altered by the omission of
that, "main beam."

"The readings were 600 times below the
government's safety limits…"

Alan: What the heck is the safety limit of
radiation, huh?

"…but there is ongoing debate about wi-fi use.
Sir William…"

Alan: Sir William Stewart.

"…Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health
Protection Agency, has said there needs to be a review of wi-fi. He told
Panorama that there was evidence that low-level radiation from devices like
mobile phones and wi-fi…"

"…some experts in the scientific community
have disagreed with his assessment."

Alan: Here's someone who’s not involved, eh?
Independent?

"Wi-fi seems unlikely to pose any risk to
health," said Professor Lawrie Challis, of Nottingham University. Prof
Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR)
programme management committee…"

Alan: If he gave another honest opinion about it,
he'd be out of a job, since he's the chairman of a whole industry, really, a
part the research program. He'd put himself out of a job if he said the
opposite, so he has to say this.

He
says:

"Wi-fi
exposures are usually very small - the transmitters are low power and some
distance from the body. "They can be near to the body, however, when a
laptop is on one's lap, and my own view is that just as we encourage young
children not to use mobile phones, we should also encourage them to use their
laptops on a table rather than their lap, if they are going online for a long
time."

Alan: I'd like to just point this little thing out
here. Some countries such as Sweden have also put money into this research, and
they have found that there's tremendous damage caused by microwave radiation,
not this wi-fi, wi-fi. Wiffy, wiffy.
Isn’t it odd, that they even call it "laptop," like they didn't know this before they started,
before they gave it to the public? The thing is called "laptop" to
encourage the youngsters to put it on their lap. What's in your lap, huh?

What does radiation of that kind eventually do,
long term, and maybe even short term, depending on the strength? It makes you rather sterile. Hmm. Whose
policy would that fit into? Do you think they just dished this stuff
out and it's not tested or they don't know? We're expected to believe they just bungle once in a while
(actually, quite often); they bungle things, when they eventually admit to you
something. They just didn't know. That's rubbish. That's nonsense. They know
darn well what they're doing at the top, because ALL TECHNOLOGY COMES FROM THE TOP INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, who had it long before the public
gets it. In fact, THEY AUTHORIZE WHEN THE PUBLIC WILL GET IT, AT THE LOW END OF THE
SPECTRUM. They know all this stuff.

"As part of its investigation, Panorama visited a school in Norwich,
with more than 1,000 pupils, to compare the level of radiation from a typical
mobile phone mast with that of wi-fi in the classroom. Readings taken for the programme, broadcast
on BBC One on Monday, showed the height of wi-fi signal strength to be three
times higher in the school classroom than the main beam of radiation intensity
from a mobile phone mast."

Alan: It's
three times higher in the school classroom than the main beam of radiation
intensity from a mobile phone mast.

"Sir William recommended to the
government in 2002 that the beam of greatest intensity from a phone mast should
not fall on any part of the school grounds, unless the school and parents
agreed to it."

Alan: Yeah. Radiate us, please. Please radiate us.
I can see the parents doing that, like they really care. The parents, really,
the problem is, they're not involved at all. They expect the system to take
care of their children for them. That's the new socialist system. Keep them out of the parents’ hair.

" Professor Malcolm Sperrin told BBC News that
the fact wi-fi radiation in a particular school was three times higher than a
mobile phone mast was irrelevant…"

Alan: It's irrelevant, you see.

"…unless there was any evidence of a link to
health effects. Wi-fi is a technique using very low intensity radio waves.
Whilst similar in wavelength to domestic microwave radiation…"

Alan: What does a "domestic microwave" do?
Huh? Does it cool things,
perhaps? No, no. It's to cook things.

He says:

"Whilst similar in wavelength to domestic
microwave radiation the intensity of wi-fi radiation is 100,000 times less than
that of a domestic microwave oven."

Alan: What size of oven is he talking about? I've seen some huge ones with some
incredible power. But that's how they word it, you see.

"Furthermore, tissue can only be
effectively heated by a wavelength that is closely matched to the absorption,
and there are strict guidelines for ensuring such absorption peaks are
avoided."

Alan: I can remember too, when the microwaves
hadn't been out for a few years. The same programs in Britain were doing
investigations into secretaries, who had gone blind in the eye closest to their
office microwave that had been put in. Both of them, in at least one of them,
went blind in the eye nearest to them.
Of course those microwaves, we’re told, were said to be very, very safe;
and they were sold to the public. There was a big hullabaloo about that at the
time; and that was hushed up by big industry, et cetera.

Plus, back in those days, they knew that down the road, they'd eventually put implants in people
and track them with the cell phone technology, before they even heard the cell
phones. It was all planned out, and they couldn't give microwave a bad
image. It was essential for this tracking, and they’re not going to change
their minds, no matter what evidence actually could come up, even if it was
allowed into the public limelight. Contrary evidence, counter evidence or
evidence that simply says this is bad for you and proves it, they simply won't
make it, because this is a "must be", a "must be" in the
system.

"The type of radiation emitted by radio waves
(wi-fi), visible light, microwaves and mobile phones has been shown to raise
the temperature of tissue at very high levels of exposure - called a thermal
interaction - but there is no evidence that low levels cause damage."

Alan: Really? It's like radiation and all the
early experimenters into the field of radiation and isotopes, for x-rays and
various other things. Even Madame Curry's husband, I mean he really was an
inventor. She simply took it over. He died, like many of them did, with
radiation contamination, and they were dealing with very low levels compared to
what they have today. Eventually it
came into the medical field. There's
no safe level of x-rays or radiation. There simply isn't, it's
accumulative, in a sense, the effects.
We're going through the same nonsense with this one; but it's a
"must be," so they're not going to give you any contrary evidence.

"The Health Protection Agency has said
that sitting in a wi-fi hotspot for a year results in receiving the same dose
of radio waves as making a 20-minute mobile phone call."

Alan: That's what they said. Should we believe
them, I wonder? It's kind of like the
other agencies they have there. At the
Food and Drug Administration in the U.S., you find all the employees go into
the Food and Drug Agencies to work. They come back out into the Protection Agency,
and then they go back out, and back and forth. One of them actually has gone
back and forth five times, a woman, she's been in the Congress and then back to
work for the Food and Drug Administration Bureau. Guess whose side she's on?
It's the same with all these agencies, the health protection agency. So
they're trying to tell us it's just like making a 20-minute mobile phone call,
which I have never done, by the way. I don't have a mobile phone and I won't
have one.

Then it goes on to
say:

"Some people suspect a non-thermal
interaction, but there is no evidence to suggest that this exists and indeed it
is unlikely," said Professor Sperrin."

Alan: “A non-thermal interaction,” there's no
evidence, hmm. I wonder if that first report I read about the new particles in
the atmosphere will change that. Then
they'll have a new report on this.

"Research proceeding."

Alan: This is the same article.

"He added: "Radio waves (wi-fi) and
other non-ionising radiations have been part of our lives for a century or more
and if such effects were occurring then damage or other untoward effects would
have been recorded and studied."

Alan: He doesn't go on to say that they still
actually have been. In fact, Toronto on the CBC television, it could have been
part of the national news; "The National" they call it.
They do their little daily specials. It was on a doctor in Toronto, who had a
microwave detector, who was going around Toronto picking up signals from all
the different cell phones towers that were scattered through the city. These
small rectangular ones are all microwave towers that they stick on the tall
buildings. They're all over the place, because there's a new phenomena called
"cell phone poisoning" basically. People are having tremendous reactions to them, including massive
lethargy and mood swings, physical symptoms. The ones who've moved out of the
city were followed up, and they've recovered.
This is a phenomenon which does exist, and yes, studies have gone into
it, and they are ongoing; so this guy isn't quite telling the truth. He's telling
a "fib," as they say in Britain. It's a very polite word, when you're
“fibbing.”

"Research is still proceeding in this area at
leading centres in many countries, but evidence points to wi-fi transmissions
being well below any likely threshold for human effects."

Alan: I can remember when Thalidomide was given out (when I was really small) to women who
were pregnant. They tried this stuff, initially, on people who had problems,
with the elderly, in fact. They used it for the elderly at first, Thalidomide
(the drug), by the drug companies, for giving tone to the bladder for attention
of urine at night, so they wouldn't be up and down to the washrooms and the
bathroom. Then, it didn't work too well, with the side effects. They tried the next target, and claimed it
would do tremendous things for women who were pregnant, and it certainly did,
when they gave birth to children with arms and legs missing, and all the rest
of it. Then it was “oops, we didn't
know, yah-de-yah.” They've actually
reintroduced Thalidomide again, a few years ago, for its next con game, which
is: “It might help women and prevent breast cancer.”

You see, you can't keep these guys down with a good con.
They keep at it and bring it back under different names and stuff. So here they
are. It's the same deal here.

"Research
is still proceeding in this area at leading centres in many countries but
evidence points to wi-fi transmissions being well below any likely threshold
for human effects."

Alan: “Any likely,” that's very reassuring.

"Professor Malcolm Sperrin said "it's
impossible to prove that something has no effect."

Alan: “It's impossible to prove,” you see.

"Panorama spoke to Professor Olle Johansson,
of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, who said there had been many recorded
effects such as chromosome damage from low-level radiation."

Alan: That is true. It's only true when you want
to know, though. If you don't want to know, it's not true.

"Professor Henry Lai, from Washington state university,
also quoted in Panorama, said he had found health effects at similar levels of
radiation to wi-fi. He estimated that of the two to three thousand studies
carried out over the last 30 years, there is a 50-50 split - half finding an
effect with the other half finding no effect at all."

Alan: One half is being paid by the guys that make
all this stuff, and the other ones are not; and that's why you come up with
your findings.

"But Professor Will J Stewart, fellow of the
Royal Academy of Engineering, said: "Science has studied the safety of
mobile phones for many years and the overwhelming body of evidence shows little
cause for concern."

Alan: There's another “independent” character:
Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the big society that makes big
dollars from all these agencies, and gets grants and stuff, that makes the cell
phones and towers. However, it's a "must be" as I say.

"As for wi-fi, although these devices operate
at a modestly different frequency to mobiles…"

Alan: “Modestly different.” You see, modestly is
not a lot.

"…they also operate at a lower power level
over a much shorter-range."

Alan: How much radiation do you want?

'No
issue': "Add to the fact
that high-bandwidth wi-fi devices are less likely to be head-mounted and there
really is no issue here."

Alan: It's kind of like, if you don't touch the
isotope, you'll be fine.

"This is not to say that all
electromagnetic radiation is necessarily harmless - sunlight, for example,
poses a significant cancer risk; so if you are using your laptop on the
beach…"

Alan: Ha, ha, ha! Oh! Excuse me. Why would you
take a laptop to the beach? You can imagine the sand that would get in it and
all the rest of it, and it would be scratched to blazes. It’s addictions, indeed.
What would you be looking at the beach, huh?
Why would you be staring at a computer screen?

"So if you're using a laptop on the beach make sure and get some shade."

Alan: Yeah, put the laptop over your head, like a
book.

"Professor Sperrin said one of the
difficulties around wi-fi research…"

Alan: That could only come from Britain.

"Professor
Sperrin said one of the difficulties around wi-fi research was that it was
impossible to prove a negative. "It's impossible to prove that something
has no effect," he said. He said there was no justification in discarding
wi-fi until it could be proved unsafe. The educational benefits from using
laptops and having access to information far outweigh any unproven fears over
the safety of wi-fi. I am more concerned about the heat laptops generate and
the impact that could on sensitive parts of the body."

Alan: Some of the heat impact could affect
sensitive parts of the body. There you
have the usual stuff. The dialectic: yes, no, yes, no, yes, no: until you're
punch drunk. Most folk give up and accept it as being okay, because they
wouldn't give you anything that wasn't, right?
That's now you think. That's how your logic goes and that's how you've
been trained—trained not to think for yourself. If lots of folk are doing it, it must be good, because your
neighbors are all doing it and using it, or whatever.

NEVER
UNDERESTIMATE THE VAST STUPIDITY OF LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE.

Now in closing, I've talked before about counter-intelligence
and how heroes are often given to the public, who take the intelligence, the
facts that are being passed around, the questions that come to discussions and
producing facts and various theories, which are very plausible and probably
correct. That's called "intelligence" that circulates amongst people.

Counter-intelligence takes that, attaches it to something
ridiculous, and spins it off into outer space, which discredits the facts. When you try and tell people the facts, once
more, without the incredulous stuff, they laugh at you, thinking you're one of
those strange guys who sees certain things which most folk don't. It's a good ploy, but it's been used so
often.

Here to finish up is a letter from Gary in England. He
emailed me with this. He said:

"Family
and I just got back from a weekend in Blackpool…"

Alan: Blackpool is a coastal city where people
used to go, the working class used to go for their occasional weekend with the
family. It has shows and things for the children; and that was a big deal at
one time, it still is, to an extent.

He says:

"The
first night I was there I spotted a big sign saying "Conspiracies
Exposed." It was advertising an
exhibition about 9/11 and how we’ve been lied to about our history, et cetera. I
had a look around and there was some good info, but it seemed to be heavily
influenced by (and I won't say the word, that would be ticky-a-tacky), by this
certain person's work. It cost me and my lass four quid each (that's four
pounds) and a couple of quid for the bairns. (The bairns are the
children). The bloke (the fellow,
that's the guy) who showed us around seemed canny, but within about five
minutes he was getting into the reptile stuff. That type of thing is just going
to turn off the average Joe, who would otherwise maybe go further down the
rabbit hole, but then it's supposed to, right?
Just thought I'd let you know about that."

Alan: That's exactly right. They attach the facts
with the incredible fiction, spin it into outer space and ridicule all of it,
so it's all in a twilight zone. That's counter-intelligence and the word even
"conspiracy," you see, the big boys want the people who are talking
about the facts to go along and have themselves labeled as conspiracy
theorists. The big boys put that term out for those to adopt. In fact, many
people who are having been around exposing things have quite happily accepted
the term, "conspiracy theorists".
It's now like a big new hobby of weirdoes.

So don't discredit your stuff. Stick to the facts. Don't
discredit yourself in the process. Just stick to the facts and you will get
through to people, if you just simply stick to the facts. So that's very, very
true, and this kind of thing is happening all over. These kinds of shows are
obviously funded as well.

That's it for me for the weekend. I'll still be busy this
weekend, as I always am. So from Hamish and myself, it's good night, and may
your god or your gods go with you.

Orwellian Clip:

"There
is always hope.

"Only
because it's the one thing that no one has figured out how to kill yet."

"The
Great American Novel"

By
Larry Norman

I was born and raised an orphan
In a land that once was free
In a land that poured its love out on the moon
And I grew up in the shadows
Of your silos filled with grain
But you never helped to fill my empty spoon

And when I was ten you murdered law
With courtroom politics
And you learned to make a lie sound just like truth
But I know you better now
And I don't fall for all your tricks
And you've lost the one advantage of my youth

You killed a black man at midnight
Just for talking to your daughter
Then you make his wife your mistress
And you leave her without water
And the sheet you wear upon your face
Is the sheet your children sleep on
And at every meal you say a prayer
You don't believe but still you keep on

And your money says in God we trust
But it's against the law to pray in school
You say we beat the Russians to the moon
And I say you starved your children to do it

You are far across the ocean
In a war that's not your own
And while you're winning theirs
You're gonna lose the one at home
Do you really think the only way
To bring about the peace
Is to sacrifice your children
And kill all your enemies

The politicians all make speeches
While the news men all take notes
And they exaggerate the issues
As they shove it down our throats
Is it really up to them
Whether this country sinks or floats
Well I wonder who would lead us
If none of us would vote

Well my phone is tapped and my lips are chapped
From whispering through the fence
You know every move I make
Or is that just coincidence
Will you try to make my way of life
A little less like jail
If I promise to make tapes and slides
And send them through the mail

And your money says in God we trust
But it's against the law to pray in school
You say we beat the Russians to the moon
And I say you starved your children to do it
You say all men are equal all men are brothers
Then why are the rich more equal than others
Don't ask me for the answers I've only got one
That a man leaves his darkness when he follows the Son